Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Pit bulls aren't supposed to weigh 100lb. The dog was probably another breed or a pit mixed with a bigger breed. Pits should weigh 40-60 (max) lbs. Frankly, any dog that is short haired and muscular gets called a pit when it bites someone.

Seriously, I have no interest in a &quot;pet&quot; I have to know how to handle. That's not a pet. An animal you have to learn to handle is something best left in the wild.

then dont have any dog....they all need to be trained.....why do think so many little ankle bitters get picked up when anyone walks by.......because they were never trained because people just pick them up instead of teaching the dog who it is.

The problem is, they attacked a baby. The baby, obviously, didn't provoke the attack. That leaves the dogs to blame. Obviously, these breeds will attack babies. If the breed doesn't, they wouldn't have.

wrong it leaves PARENTS TO BLAME........DOG OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DOGS AND PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILDREN.....THESE PEOPLE WERE NEITHER. secondly that theory would make every dog breed unsafe.....they have all bitten people I gurantee it

And THIS is why we have millions of dogs (and cats) being euthanized in shelters every year - because people think of them as disposable, and just &quot;get rid of them&quot; whenever it become inconvenient or slightly difficult to care for them. Don't want the responsibility of controlling a household with dogs & children? Simple solution, either don't have a dog in the first place or don't have children. If you do have a dog and then decide to have children, be aware that you'll have to be on-guard and in control of the situation at all times. Getting rid of them isn't a solution, it's plain laziness & usually a death sentence for the poor animal.

As somebody who's volunteered at rescues, quite frankly I'm sick of this type of attitude... people dumping off their &quot;beloved pets&quot; because they're moving, had/have kids, got a new job, and a myriad of other pathetic excuses. I've had my dog for almost 6 years now, and in that period I've moved 3 times, gone to (graduate) school, switched jobs & hours, almost every life change except for having children. Somehow I've still managed to keep him with me, even paying exorbitant rent & fees I can't really afford just to find a dog-friendly rental. It's called responsibility for another living being, people - learn it.

Sorry, this rant isn't necessarily directed at you, just a general rant about people's attitudes towards pets. And obviously if a dog suddenly becomes VICIOUS, it isn't a good pet to have around children... but I have a hard time believing that a gentle, loving dog will turn aggressive for no reason. There's always a reason behind that behavior, and it's the owner's duty to figure out the cause (and hopefully address it). If you absolutely can't solve the issue, at least have the courtesy of finding them a good re-home yourself - shooting/euthanizing or tossing them in a shelter is not the answer.

soooo true. I have a dog that at age 8 weeks was both dog and people agressive....my vet would not work on him and told me to put him down. He would literally try to attack me and my other male dog. would not submit to being flip on back etc. Anyway that dog is now 7 years old. He gets along great with all dogs and people, much better than my other dogs. He lets my kids rough house with him and I gurantee you would have to kill him before anyoone could lay a hand on my kids in a bad way. Its called responsibility.....if you dont like dogs dont have one. if you dont like a breed don't get it. Dogs have behavior issues like kids, they chew, run away, push limits etc. but lumping all dogs of a breed to be human killers is the same mentality as people with a different skin color being dangerous

I want to add to this (cause everything else was SPOT ON!) that dogs don't &quot;suddenly just turn&quot; either. Except in cases of medical illness/injury there are ALWAYS warning signs. There's usually only 3 causes of agression, genetics (bad parents, and can be fixed by research of breeders), bad training (IMO 98% fall into this catagory), and illness/injury (in which case, regular vet checks can lessen this risk.).

Honestly, if I ever had a dog with human agression issues, a vet check would be the first thing, then intensive training, and if all that failed, death.

thats true the dogs will act different way before just attacking in most cases.....there is a reality that bringing a baby into a house with dogs, especially older ones can casue behavior issues. However you have the responsibility to try to adress the issue and reolve it if possible. If not resolvable you have the responsibility to find the dog a good safe home, not a shelter.

then dont have any dog....they all need to be trained.....why do think so many little ankle bitters get picked up when anyone walks by.......because they were never trained because people just pick them up instead of teaching the dog who it is.

Very very true, and I didn't mean to imply that ANY dog can be left untrained... for that particular poster, I was only pointing out that some breeds are primarily meant to be companions. But even a companion needs proper canine training & behavior corrections! No offense to the toy breed owners, but I've found the little dogs are usually the most poorly behaved.

wrong it leaves PARENTS TO BLAME........DOG OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DOGS AND PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILDREN.....THESE PEOPLE WERE NEITHER. secondly that theory would make every dog breed unsafe.....they have all bitten people I gurantee it

I agree that parents should protect children and they should start by not owning dogs that will attack an innocent baby who did NOTHING to provoke the attack. THAT is a viscious animal. That baby couldn't have done anything to provoke the attack. The dogs just decided to kill the baby. That fits my definition of viscious and non pet worthy.

You're missing that we don't NEED dogs. You don't have to have a "pet" (I use the term loosely with animals that have to be trained and dominated to be kept in their place) that is a danger to your children. There are plenty of pets who won't hurt your kids.

thats true the dogs will act different way before just attacking in most cases.....there is a reality that bringing a baby into a house with dogs, especially older ones can casue behavior issues. However you have the responsibility to try to adress the issue and reolve it if possible. If not resolvable you have the responsibility to find the dog a good safe home, not a shelter.

Any dog that threatened my kids would find itself on the losing end of a lethal injection. I would not feel right about giving a dog to someone else I did not trust around children. There are lots of children out there.

that would not be a dog really. their descendents are pack animals that hunt to live

That's why I don't want a dog. To me a pet isn't worth having if it has to be dominated and trained. I'd rather leave an animal that needs that kind of "training" in the wild. That's where they belong.

I understand working dogs like leader dogs or farm dogs. It's worth training them because of the human benefit. The only benefit I can see to the average dog owner is they get something they can Lord over and I don't see the attraction there. I guess I just don't need something I have to dominate.

I wouldn't have a wild cat for the same reasons. Some animals are just not pet material. They're too wild to be pets.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.